zlacker

[return to "The business of tear gas"]
◧
1. splitr+f5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:25:02
>>hhs+(OP)
Tear gas is a chemical weapon and as such is banned in war according to the Geneva Conventions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/1...

◧◩
2. oicu81+A5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:27:03
>>splitr+f5
The article states, "It also lives in a legal gray zone, due to international treaties that allow it to be used in domestic law enforcement but not in war."
◧◩◪
3. geogra+S5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:28:07
>>oicu81+A5
Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement either.
◧◩◪◨
4. eitlan+87[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:33:12
>>geogra+S5
Do you have a suggestion for a better way to achieve the same results?

(Of course we can discuss if most of the uses of tear gas are wrong, but lets for a moment think that we have a moment were we need to chase away a crowd of evil persons riotong and threatening to kill perfectly innocent children.)

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pjc50+hh[view] [source] 2020-06-02 16:20:06
>>eitlan+87
What do you do if you have a crowd of police threatening to kill perfectly innocent children?

(Or at least use excessive force without regard for the presence of children: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-georgia-cops-critically-... )

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. eitlan+8i[view] [source] 2020-06-02 16:23:40
>>pjc50+hh
Not what I'm asking.

I'm trying to discuss the correct use of force, not if the force is being used correctly.

I can often admit that what I wrote can be misunderstood but you and mdorazio seems to ho out of your way to misunderstand me.

Why?

[go to top]